ASL, SEE Sign, & Signed English

rockdrummer said:
Thanks for the explanation and I am hopeful (because I see it in practice) that the wasted time on oralism is not taking place as much as in AG's days. I honestly believe that nowadays the educators do recognize that different approaches work for different people. At least that has been my experience in dealing with my son's school. What are your thoughts on curriculum? Do you think that deaf kids should have different curriculum or is it just on the teaching methods
Click to expand...

It depends on the school... some schools are still pretty bad, some are doing good things, some are just pits where they send unruly or learning disorders kids while other deaf kids are mainstreamed.

As for how I think it SHOULD be? Bi-Bi Options

I think attempting to teach oralism first is a mistake. Don't waste time attempting to make a deaf person pass for hard of hearing. Find the best method of communication that makes 100% comprehension the FIRST goal, and then--with that--you can teach anything.

How much you YOU learn from a book if we printed with light grey ink on white paper stock and then scratched out every third or fourth word?
 
shel90 said:
:gpost: :gpost: :gpost:

Just one question..when u say that deaf schools waste time on lipreaching or speech therapy, r u referring to all or the oral only deaf schools? Even mainstreamed schools do waste time (from my experience) cuz I remember I spent 1 hour every day in speech therapy until middle school and then twice a week for 1 hour each in high school. Even in high school, I was practicing how to sound out each letter of the alphabet. Waste of my time..it was ok for me when I was a toddler just to see if I cud develop oral skills but to continue it until I was a senior? I thought that was ridiculous and a huge waste of my time.
Click to expand...

Any curriculum that is taking time away from learning about the world--math, physics, social science, etc... to teach the deaf how to speak and read lips--is doing a disservice to the student, IMO. Now, it should be offered as an option for people who have an aptitude and want to learn it, but to teach that FIRST, and then USE it to teach other things? Terrible idea.

It's not a waste of time as a skill for those who can do it. But not everyone can. I doubt I could learn to read lips.

Edit to add: When I say "Any curriculum that is taking time away from learning about the world--math, physics, social science, etc... to teach the deaf how to speak and read lips--is doing a disservice to the student" I mean when they're teaching that first as THE method of communication and without the use of a deaf person's own language. For the opposite of that which DOES use some phonics: Putting Bi-Bi Theory into Practice--KidsWorld Deaf Net E-Doc--Gallaudet's Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center
 
rockdrummer said:
Thanks for the explanation and I am hopeful (because I see it in practice) that the wasted time on oralism is not taking place as much as in AG's days. I honestly believe that nowadays the educators do recognize that different approaches work for different people. At least that has been my experience in dealing with my son's school. What are your thoughts on curriculum? Do you think that deaf kids should have different curriculum or is it just on the teaching methods
Click to expand...

And I do believe you are correct in that. It doesn't happen as much, but it is still happening way too often. That is why I continue to risk being labeled an extremist. If even one deaf child misses out on an adequate education because of overly oral philosophies, it is one child too many for me.
 
Capmeister said:
Well, English is part Germanic and part Romance language with Latin rules arbitrarly slapped on by monks, but mainly for rules, not syntax.

Yesterday, I went with my brother as he was inducted into this organization: Kappa Delta Pi - Honor Society for Education

I'd not met his interpreters for his MSU classes and as we chatted before the ceremony, I told them upfront to expect me just to sign to them as I don't voice and sign well at the same time. (I can do it, but surely not in ASL, and it's slower even in PSE.) They both said, "oh, yeah--same problem."

I can see using SEE for teaching English grammer or writing, but to use it in Science class? Or Math? DUMB.

I know my brother's sign most of all, more than anyone elses, obviously. He was "interviewed" for an interpreter's test and it was video taped (the student terps are to watch his answers to a variety of questions and interpret what he's saying). So I wanted to try it. At the start of the tape I understand him perfectly and can terp what he's saying (I do it all the time in public). As the tape goes on he's getting more ASL (it's what was called for) and he's using signs he doesn't often use with me (lousy, inept, and a sign that's sort of negotiation but sort of furious back and forth almost begging sort of thing that I'd never seen before and he struggled to explain for a moment)... anyway, I started purely understanding the gist of what he was saying, but losing a word here and there and was unable to really voice what he said quickly. I really need to work on that. ;) And one of his interpreters was excellent at ASL yesterday and I was sometimes clueless. She said something long and I looked to Josh and he said, "did you get that?" And I admitted I really didn't. He told me what she said and I turned to the interpreters and said, indicating him, "MY interpreter." :D
Click to expand...

Agreed. But the combining of two different oral languages, or two different visual languages (such as French and American Sign Language) is more successful because even though there may be variations, oral languages follow the same basic premise of construction, and visual languages follow the same basic premise of construction.
 
Capmeister said:
Any curriculum that is taking time away from learning about the world--math, physics, social science, etc... to teach the deaf how to speak and read lips--is doing a disservice to the student, IMO. Now, it should be offered as an option for people who have an aptitude and want to learn it, but to teach that FIRST, and then USE it to teach other things? Terrible idea.

It's not a waste of time as a skill for those who can do it. But not everyone can. I doubt I could learn to read lips.

Edit to add: When I say "Any curriculum that is taking time away from learning about the world--math, physics, social science, etc... to teach the deaf how to speak and read lips--is doing a disservice to the student" I mean when they're teaching that first as THE method of communication and without the use of a deaf person's own language. For the opposite of that which DOES use some phonics: Putting Bi-Bi Theory into Practice--KidsWorld Deaf Net E-Doc--Gallaudet's Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center
Click to expand...

:gpost: :gpost: :gpost: :gpost: And congratulations to your brother on his induction!
 
rockdrummer said:
Thanks Jillio.. What exactly is the "whole deaf kids" approach. Does it include necessary skills to be able to function, communicate and be sucessful in a hearing society or is it an approach that doesn't need anything from the hearing society?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does include those skills. But before a deaf child can learn to function in a society that is more or less foreign (based on language and sensory input), they have to learn to function in a society theat they understand and relate to. In other words, they have to learn to be deaf, first. Then we can teach them how to function as a deaf individual in a hearing society. If we don't address it that way, we end up with individuals who have no idea how to make the transition, because they have never learned to cpaitalize on their own inherent strengths and sense of self competence.
 
Capmeister said:
Thanks!

Who considers you an extremest and why?
Click to expand...

Believe me--there are those on the board who have labeled me militant, and extremist, and anti CI, when nothing is further from the truth. I simply post so that all sides of a coin are available, and insist that when decisions are being made for the deaf, they are best made from a deaf perspective. Oh, well....:giggle:
 
jillio said:
Believe me--there are those on the board who have labeled me militant, and extremist, and anti CI, when nothing is further from the truth. I simply post so that all sides of a coin are available, and insist that when decisions are being made for the deaf, they are best made from a deaf perspective. Oh, well....:giggle:
Click to expand...

I don't know that I've seen you be anti-CI. I think you point out some important things. And I think you'd agree that for some people the CI is wonderful and really does the trick. For some it doesn't. I imagine that as technology gets better it will even better and better. But I'm not sure people understand that as when someone has a stroke and loses the ability to talk, it takes a long time to relearn how to talk. Look at Dick Clark and Kirk Douglas. Well, the CI isn't like flipping a switch from "deaf" to "hearing." The brain has to accomidate a new sense and it takes time, and work. Probably different for everyone, to be sure. In my brother's case it was too annoying and too frustrating to work with (that was back in the mid to late 80s however) but he has nothing against CI's and if people want to try them--more power to them.

I've seen, by the way, a little deaf boy on YouTube who has two CI's and speaks perfectly and sure seems to hear well. One of the CI's was implanted very young, so I think the brain adapted quickly.

It's a tool, not a magic wand. So long as people know that, I hope anyone here who gets a CI can make it work well for them--who wouldn't want something like that to work out. But if it doesn't, or people decide not to get it, it doesn't mean they're "broken" and can't be fixed. It just means they have to take some special steps to work around the missing sense.
 
Capmeister said:
I don't know that I've seen you be anti-CI. I think you point out some important things. And I think you'd agree that for some people the CI is wonderful and really does the trick. For some it doesn't. I imagine that as technology gets better it will even better and better. But I'm not sure people understand that as when someone has a stroke and loses the ability to talk, it takes a long time to relearn how to talk. Look at Dick Clark and Kirk Douglas. Well, the CI isn't like flipping a switch from "deaf" to "hearing." The brain has to accomidate a new sense and it takes time, and work. Probably different for everyone, to be sure. In my brother's case it was too annoying and too frustrating to work with (that was back in the mid to late 80s however) but he has nothing against CI's and if people want to try them--more power to them.

I've seen, by the way, a little deaf boy on YouTube who has two CI's and speaks perfectly and sure seems to hear well. One of the CI's was implanted very young, so I think the brain adapted quickly.

It's a tool, not a magic wand. So long as people know that, I hope anyone here who gets a CI can make it work well for them--who wouldn't want something like that to work out. But if it doesn't, or people decide not to get it, it doesn't mean they're "broken" and can't be fixed. It just means they have to take some special steps to work around the missing sense.
Click to expand...

In complete agreement. And I would also say that while we are waiting for the time it takes for the adaptation skills to be learned, do not impoverish a child by not providing communication in ASL.
 
jillio said:
In complete agreement. And I would also say that while we are waiting for the time it takes for the adaptation skills to be learned, do not impoverish a child by not providing communication in ASL.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. The idea that to learn signing means one can't learn anything else flies in the face of evidence presented by multi-lingual households. My mom grew up speaking two languages, and while fluent in English without an accent, sometimes dreamed in her first language. Kids are little learning machines at a young age--we should take advantage of it and teach them all to sign. :D
 
Is it really so awful to be labelled as anti-CI? A person that dare to label her/himself as anti-CI is to me a true intellectual that can follow the neturality vs. morality of technology discourse. I wish more people was brave enough to say out loudly:

"I am fed up repeating CI is not a miracle. It has caused more trouble than good for the average deaf kid so far. If I say something else, it's just because I am trying to save your kid and not scare you away."
 
flip said:
Is it really so awful to be labelled as anti-CI? A person that dare to label her/himself as anti-CI is to me a true intellectual that can follow the neturality vs. morality of technology discourse. I wish more people was brave enough to say out loudly:

"I am fed up repeating CI is not a miracle. It has caused more trouble than good for the average deaf kid so far. If I say something else, it's just because I am trying to save your kid and not scare you away."
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. There ARE people who've benefitted from their CI. I wouldn't get anything peirced, but I wouldn't be anti-peircing...just anti-peircing ME.

And, if I suddenly went deaf, and could be helped with a CI, I'd get it.
 
Capmeister said:
It's not that simple. There ARE people who've benefitted from their CI. I wouldn't get anything peirced, but I wouldn't be anti-peircing...just anti-peircing ME.

And, if I suddenly went deaf, and could be helped with a CI, I'd get it.
Click to expand...

Anti-piercing ME..that's a good one so I can say that I am anti-CI ME.

I thought I was anti CI but then I realized it wasn't the CIs themselves that I am against....I am against the beliefs that because the child gets a CI, the child doesn't need sign language. U can say I am ant-oral only ediucation.
 
shel90 said:
Anti-piercing ME..that's a good one so I can say that I am anti-CI ME.

I thought I was anti CI but then I realized it wasn't the CIs themselves that I am against....I am against the beliefs that because the child gets a CI, the child doesn't need sign language. U can say I am ant-oral only ediucation.
Click to expand...
Based on that would you deprive a child of the potential success from the CI for your fear of the demise of ASL? Just curious.
 
shel90 said:
Anti-piercing ME..that's a good one so I can say that I am anti-CI ME.

I thought I was anti CI but then I realized it wasn't the CIs themselves that I am against....I am against the beliefs that because the child gets a CI, the child doesn't need sign language. U can say I am ant-oral only ediucation.
Click to expand...

The child might need it, and might not... but I think it's best to learn it. What happens if the CI breaks down eventually? What happens if the child as an adult needs an MRI in a life and death situation and needs to have it removed? Heck--an EM Pulse from a nuke would knock out a CI. Those things would probably NEVER happen (well, a CI going bad could). But why not have a backup plan to communicate if you need?

If I were blind, but could wear a bionic eye, I'd still learn where all my furniture is in the house, just in case. :)
 
rockdrummer said:
Based on that would you deprive a child of the potential success from the CI for your fear of the demise of ASL? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I just dont like the idea of surgery on my baby. That's a personal issue with me.
 
Back
Top